Introduction
The importance of history to humankind cannot be overstated. This assertion is founded on the view that history plays a pivotal role in helping humankind to understand the occurrences of the present times. Mostly, events that occur in the present are connected inextricably with past events.
As such, in order to make meaning out of such events, there is a need to trace its history in a bid to help in understanding the relevance of its occurrence in the present context. Over the years, this importance of history has inspired humankind to devise ways of preserving history.
In effect, numerous ways of recording and storing history are at the disposal of humankind in the contemporary times. Among the numerous mechanisms of depicting historical events is the use of film (motion pictures). Film industries across the world have invested in movies, which recount the events of the past with notable success.
Hollywood, which is the world’s leading film industry, has churned out numerous history-inspired movies since its inception. Many of such movies often elicit ambivalent reactions from the audience within the United States and across the world. The reactions stem from the idea that the movies fail to capture the historical events that they depict with the accuracy and detail they deserve.1
It has been established that many historical films’ depiction of historical events considerably differs with what is recorded in written texts.2 In other cases, movie directors simply choose to ignore important aspects of the historical event in question.
These disparities have been a debatable issue between filmmakers and historians for a long time as for historians, if films are to pass as an alternative medium of telling history, they need to incorporate all the necessary aspects of the historical events.3
In the light of this controversy, this essay seeks to examine the extent to which Hollywood’s depiction of the American history is limited to the American White. This assertion holds as critics of Hollywood’s depiction of the American history argue that it is biased and non-objective.4
Preamble
Hollywood is the United States’ film hub and consequently the world’s leading entertainment hub. Since its inception, many historically inspired movies have been produced in its giant studios. However, the concern has been raised over the authenticity and historical accuracy of most movies because their portrayal of history is alleged to be distorted and biased.
Analysts have attempted to come up with many explanations as to why Hollywood produces such apparently misrepresentative movies, with some arguing that economic reasons drive movie producers to ignore some vital aspects of history in order to avoid upsetting influential people or be consistent with the majority views.5 As a result, minority groups reportedly have reservations with the movies that Hollywood produces.
The reason behind the reservations expressed by minority groups about Hollywood’s depiction of their lifestyles is often misrepresentation or in some cases, simply ignoring the roles they play in landmark historical events.6
Numerous movies that have been produced in Hollywood about the history of the United States have been accused of ignoring other racial groupings or portraying them exactly the way the whites want them to appear, viz. the image given on the screen embodies the White man’s perception of the particular racial grouping under consideration.
The movies almost exclusively focus on the role played by the White American males even in cases where it is apparent that other racial groupings such African-Americans, Native Indians, and other minority racial groupings played notable roles to ensure the success of the historical endeavour in question.
For instance, in his commentary about the movie Mississippi Burning directed by Alan Parker, Brent Toplin notes that African Americans were especially outraged by the movie because it entirely ignored the critical contribution they made to the civil rights war of the 1960s.7
The extent to which Hollywood has limited the history of the United States to the White American males is examined in this essay through a careful analysis of two movies viz. Mississippi Burning (Dir. Alan Parker, 1988, US) and The Birth of a Nation (Dir: D. W. Griffith, 1915, US).8
Analysis of Mississippi Burning
The movie Mississippi Burning is one of the numerous attempts by Hollywood to depict the civil rights war that raged across the United States in the 1960s. The movie was written under the watch of Chris Gerolmo and directed under the leadership of Alan Parker.9 The movie was inspired by real occurrences witnessed in Mississippi in 1964 at the height of the civil rights campaigns.
However, it does not limit itself to the facts of its underlying story. Instead, it incorporates fiction and at some points, it leaves out the true account of what happened uses fiction instead. The storyline of the movie derives from the brutal murder of three young civil rights workers, viz. Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman (both white), and James Chaney (a black) due to their efforts aimed at liberating the African-Americans.10
During the development of the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Act 1964, this trio was instrumental in championing for the civil rights of the Southern blacks among other issues that were still considered off limits by the whites.11 They had launched widespread campaigns to register black voters under the auspices of the Congress for Racial Equality.12
Their efforts seemed to be paying off because segregationists found it impossible to sit back and watch and thus they decided to intimidate the blacks and their white sympathisers by burning churches and beating up blacks and their white accomplices.13
On the fateful day, the three civil rights workers were on a mission to investigate yet another burning of a black church14 because to them it was not right and the perpetrators of such acts were supposed to be apprehended and dealt with according to law. On their way, they ended up under arrest by the county sheriff on some outrageous charges with which they could not be held for long.
After their release the same evening, the sheriff arranged with the Klansmen who captured them, led them to the forest, and shot them in cold blood. After their shooting, they were transported a few miles to a nearby earthen dam where they were buried using of a bulldozer at the base of the dam.15
When the bodies were eventually discovered about six weeks later under the FBI investigations, Goldman reportedly had a ball of clay tightly held in his lifeless hand, which is a clear indicator that he was not actually dead at the time of his untimely burial.16
This narration is the true story behind the movie. However, the movie departs from some critical aspects of the true account. The makers of the movie claimed that it was necessary to depart from some details of the true occurrence in order to make the movie appealing to a larger audience.17 The movie largely focuses on the investigations of the disappearance of the trio, which was carried out by the FBI.
The FBI at the time did not have a single black employee. In this sense, the investigation was an entirely white affair because it featured the FBI against the Klan.18
In instances in which the black appear in the movie, they are depicted as a cowering lot which, due to the intimidations of the Ku Klux Klan (a vigilante that the whites used to intimidate the African-American community), were unable to offer any meaningful help towards the solution of the case.19
A scene is shown in the movie where an FBI agent corners a black man who, according to the movie, does not give any information at all, but is still beaten up by the clan later. The scene serves to show how cowardly and unhelpful the blacks were in the context of the movie.20
Although the movie has been credited for effectively capturing the mood, the time, and location21 for the real events as well as some other pertinent details, critics have raised concerns over how it portrays the black.
In the introductory parts of the movie where the three civil rights activists are under siege, Chaney, the only black among them, is portrayed as a passive character sitting at the back of the car, relying on the wits of his two white friends.22 This move is a departure from the true story because Chaney was in fact the character who was supposed to be at the centre of the action as he was the actual driver during the chase.23
When the makers of Mississippi Burning choose to alter that small, but critical detail in the movie, it becomes apparent that their account of history revolves around the white. In addition, it was atypical of Chaney to sit in the background and wait for the guidance of the whites; instead, he was an active civil rights activist who was charged with the responsibility of a full time organiser for the Congress for Racial Equality.24
The whites are portrayed as having played a bigger role than any other racial grouping that was present in Mississippi at the time.
This misrepresentation is compounded by the view that instead of simply ignoring the roles played by the blacks in the actual events that took place in Mississippi in 1964, the moviemakers assign some of the roles to the whites. Such a move makes it clear that according Hollywood, the making of the American history was entirely a white American male affair.
Numerous other scenes in Mississippi Burning portray the white American male as the character around which the history of the United States revolves.
For instance, in the original script of the movie as written by Gerolmo, there was no black FBI agent, but the director Alan Parker chose to incorporate a fictional scene in which a black FBI agent, in his application of the FBI’s unorthodox tactics, threatens the mayor (a white) with castration.25
The incorporation of such a scene was seen as an effort to capture some of the bizarre occurrences that were ongoing in Mississippi at the time. However, it fails to reflect the true picture of history by portraying a black man as the perpetrator of such a heinous act. In the 1964 Mississippi, such an occurrence was inconceivable, as in the real life, a black could not have had the audacity to threaten a white with castration.
However, it should be noted that for the sake of this essay, what is important is the portrayal of the white man as the victim of the act. Once again, it is clear that the white American is at the centre of Hollywood’s depiction of American history, and like in the previous example, the roles are swapped to grant the White man positive publicity while demeaning the black man.
In separate example, the overall perspective of Mississippi Burning exhibits a biased representation in which the white man is portrayed as the all-knowing character that is at the centre of every event trying to offer solutions. The story on which the movie is based was a civil rights struggle that eventually turns tragic.
Although much attention is given to the tragic climax of the civil rights campaign, it is worth noting that the struggle had been ongoing for a long time and with so much difficulty for the blacks who were at the forefront as well as their white sympathisers or counterparts.26 The murder of the trio marked the climax of this struggle.
Intriguingly, in making a movie that is supposed to capture the painful struggle for freedom in the Deep South, those in charge chose to focus on the aftermath of the murders. The movie was a showdown between the Ku Klux Klan and the FBI. These two groupings were exclusively a product of white men at the time. Therefore, in making the movie, the battle between the two groupings becomes an entirely white affair.
The parts played by blacks and other racial groupings are largely ignored or placed in the distant background. Although the FBI in the movie features a lone black man, this aspect does not alter the overall picture, as the lone black man did not make any notable contribution to the solution of the case.27
In this sense, the movie transforms an almost entirely black affair in history (the civil rights struggle and its fruits) to be perceived in terms of what the white man did.
The struggle for freedom bore positive fruits when the landmark legislation on civil rights was enacted in the wake of the killings of the three civil rights activists. For any casual observer, it is apparent that the struggle, though it turned tragic, had eventually paid off.
However, in the movie, the good fruits of the struggle are attributed to the FBI because they were not in a position to capture the perpetrators of the murders successfully. The FBI’s success boils down to two main characters, viz. Anderson and Ward, who are whites just as in numerous other instances.28
The director of the movie attributes the success of the struggle for freedom among the blacks to the resourcefulness of these two men.
This act shows clearly that Hollywood can go to any lengths to ensure that it brings to the audience what is thought to be appealing without caring much about the effects it may have on the minority groups. According to Mississippi Burning, every major positive step was made possible by the contribution of the whites.
The portrayal of blacks in a sheep like package where in every situation they wait for the whites to give direction is not limited to Mississippi Burning. Concerns and sharp criticisms such as those elicited by this movie have also been reported on other historical movies produced by Hollywood.
For instance, in the movie Gone with the Wind (Dir: David O. Selznick, 1939, US), the contribution of blacks in the Civil War is largely ignored. In the movie, they are only reduced to zombie-like household servants who are lazy, unintelligent, and clumsy in their undertakings.29
The same trend is adopted in the movie Old Kentucky in which Stepin Fetchit’s role as a black character is to appear slow-witted, shiftless, and lazy.30 Such a depiction shows clearly the Hollywood’s determination to insist that any meaningful events that took place in history of the United States were courtesy of the white American male.
This idea of limiting the historical development of the United States to the white American male as depicted by Hollywood is not limited to demeaning or simply ignoring the roles played by blacks only, as the white females and other racial groupings such as the Native American Indians are at the receiving end as well.
In the movie Gone with the Wind, though feminine characters take pre-eminence in the plot, the reason behind such an occurrence is what makes their role appear unimportant.
While the white men are engaged in the Civil War (a definitive historical event), the women are left at home to watch over slaves and other domestic servants (blacks).31 This depiction completely ignores and demeans any contribution that the white American female made towards the Civil War.
Similarly, Hollywood’s portrayal of the Native American Indian bears a lot of resemblance to the portrayal of blacks and white females. In most cases, they are simply ignored as they only appear when they must, but still play some unimportant roles. It is sad to note that in the early 1900’s, the native American Indians, just like blacks, could not be allowed to appear in the Hollywood movies.32
Their roles were given to whites wearing facial masks to give them the desired appearance. For instance, in the movie The Birth of a Nation, whites wore black facial masks to give them the desired black appearance because the blacks could not be allowed to act alongside white women.33
In this sense, Hollywood continued to portray the minority races as backward and incapable of making meaningful contributions towards the everyday challenges that affected the American public at the time.
Analysis of The Birth of a Nation
In The Birth of a Nation, D.W. Griffith, one of the most respected movie directors of his time, produced a film that is still touted by many as a very good movie by the standards of the time.34 This credit only holds insofar as the movie making techniques are concerned. However, in terms of the depiction of history, the movie has elicited a lot of criticism.
Many critics consider it as a movie that represents an extreme viewpoint insofar as racism is concerned. In addition, its depiction of the Southern blacks and their contribution to the occurrences of the pre-civil war and post-civil war South is demeaning and ridiculous.
Such strong sentiments stem from the view that the movie portrays the black as destructive and negative characters that are incapable of making any meaningful contribution to society. The movie was inspired by Rev. Thomas Dixon’s book The Clansman.35 The book portrays the rise of the Ku Klux Klan as a timely and essential occurrence, which helped to put things in order because they were spiralling out of control.
The Birth of a Nation did not make any conscious effort to hide the perception of the blacks by the whites in the South at the time of its production. The producer, D.W. Griffith, being a Southerner, did not make any effort to hide his prejudice towards the blacks of the South in making the movie either.
Like many historical movies that have been produced by Hollywood, the male American emerges strongly as the character around which the positive development of American history revolves. The movie features two white families before and after the Civil War, which ravaged the United States.36
Each of the two families had their son fighting in the Civil War such that what they are shown to be going through during the war correctly depicts what families went through when their loved ones left to participate in war. After the war, the movie depicts blacks as villains who are on a rampage as the Northern carpetbaggers use them to take over the Southern territory.37 It takes the intervention of the Ku Klux Klan to restored “order”.
This movie, though it features white American females and even people of colour, it still revolves around the white American male. The fighting in the Civil War was largely a white affair until it was realised that the assistance of the blacks may be necessary. The blacks were lured into the war by being deceived that they had been granted freedom from slavery.38
Like in the movie Mississippi Burning, the blacks are depicted as clueless creatures that can only do something worthwhile under the instruction of the whites. Therefore, in the Civil War, the blacks are depicted as unintelligent people who rely on the guidance of the whites.
However, the malutto are depicted as dangerous creatures, which have the intelligence of whites blended with the animalistic nature of the blacks.39 It makes them appear vicious in the negative sense, for instance, always wanting to rape white women.40
After the Civil War, the blacks are portrayed as being on a rampage by literally taking over the South with lawlessness and disorder. They do not do this on their own, but under the influence of greedy Northerners who seek to take over the South. One very notable scene from the movie is when a servant, Gus, seeks to rape a young white girl (his master’s daughter).
The girl decides to jump over a cliff and die to preserve her purity rather than allow herself to be defiled by a black. The Ku Klux Klan intervenes and subjects the black man to outrageous acts, but according to the movie, the acts are justified because they were conducted in the interest of the whites.
Again, like in Mississippi Burning, the blacks are caught in between a showdown between two white groupings. The Klan seeks to bring order and restore control to the southern white while the northern carpetbaggers seek to exploit the war ravaged south.
The rise of the Ku Klux Klan is marked with excitement and celebration.41 Their atrocities against blacks are considered justified as they are seen as the guardians of peace and order. The Klan is a grouping that is well known in the history of the United States as dangerous and whose primary concern is to propagate hatred against blacks.
When it is depicted in the movie as a celebrated and heroic grouping, which puts out-of-control blacks in their “rightful” place, the message is very clear, viz. any act instigated by the white against the blacks is justified no matter how bizarre it is because only the life of the white man matters.42 The milestones that were covered in terms of positive development were thus fully attributable to the white American male.
Reasons behind Hollywood’s distortion of American History
Based on the few movies that have been highlighted in this essay, it is apparent that the Hollywood’s version of history is entirely distorted. There are several reasons, which the moviemakers attribute the distortions to including commercial reasons, but the bottom line remains that Hollywood has always tampered with historical records in making its historical movies.43
This trend is quite disheartening especially considering the view that today, film is emerging as a resource for studying history, and the younger generation finds it endearing to obtain their historical knowledge from films rather than books.
The claim that the Hollywood’s version of history is distorted stems from the view that it tells history with bias and prejudice especially when the historical events include the participation of minority groupings. The distortions emerge from the different manners in which the United States’ movie industry approaches historical movies.
The Hollywood’s historical movies were mostly told from the viewpoint of the whites.44 This assertion implies that any other racial groupings that featured in the movies were packaged to fit into the white man’s stereotype of the particular race.
This way, Hollywood ended up depicting the history of the United States in a manner that was palatable to the white society without caring about the effects of such an approach on the other racial groupings.
The picture that this trend paints about Hollywood is that in its approach to history, it sought to please some influential characters who would not take it kindly if other racial groupings were depicted as heroes. Due to the presence of this kind of pressure, Hollywood has largely portrayed the American history as being a white man affair.
In cases where the minority groups made it onto the screen, they were assigned demeaning roles, which in some cases were acted by whites disguised with facial masks to give them the desired appearance. This approach adds to the idea that the influential characters in the ranks of Hollywood are responsible for the industry’s distortion of historical records.
This aspect includes the personal perspectives of the moviemakers as well because in Mississippi Burning for instance, the director Alan Parker altered many details on the original script as had been written by the movie’s originator, Gerolmo.45
Some of the alterations elicited criticism even from Gerolmo himself because he thought they were extreme.46 This aspect shows the influence wielded by influential figures in the movie making industry insofar as determining the details of a movie is concerned.
The result of these externalities has been movies, which depict the white as the heroes even in cases where the heroic acts were executed by non-whites. Therefore, it is plausible to conclude that according Hollywood, any meaningful historical act was courtesy of the whites and especially males because females have largely been kept in the background just like other racial groupings.
Most historical movies produced in Hollywood are thus considered limited in their coverage of historical events because they ignore vital historical contributions of other racial groupings or they attempt to alter the course of history by attributing heroic or negative acts to the wrong groupings.
Conclusion
This essay sought to examine the extent to which the Hollywood’s depiction of the American history is limited to male American white. It has been established that while some of the historical movies produced in Hollywood have won numerous awards due to the quality of their production, it is apparent that an objective analysis based on their content would tell otherwise.
Almost all historical films produced by Hollywood have been faulty in the eyes of historians for not paying close attention to historical details. Among the fervent critics of the historical movies are the minority racial groupings in the United States especially the blacks.
This assertion holds as most movies ignore the minorities’ contribution to major historical events completely or they wrongfully praise a different group for what was accomplished by the blacks. The native Indians as well as white women have also been treated unfairly in the Hollywood’s most historical movies.
All these groupings are often portrayed as supportive characters even in roles that are supposed to be fully attributed to them. This bias is always in favour of the white American male and this pattern makes it apparent that the Hollywood’s depiction of the American history is largely based on the endeavours of the white American male.
Reference List
Butters, G., 2008, ‘Hollywood Be Thy Name and the New Wave of African American Film Scholarship’, Reviews in American History, vol.36 no.1, pp. 89–94.
Canby, V., 1988, ‘Review/Film; Retracing Mississippi’s Agony, 1964’, The New York Times. Web.
Carnes, M., Mico, T, Miller-Monzon, J & Rubel, D 1995, Past imperfect, H. Holt, New York.
Davis, N., 2003, ‘Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective’, The Public Historian, vol.25 no.3, pp. 45–48.
Dawson, A., 2009, Hollywood for historians, University of Warwick, Coventry.
Fyne, R., 2006, ‘American History and Contemporary Hollywood Film’, The Journal of Popular Culture, vol.39 no.3, pp. 500-501.
Griffith, W.,1915, The Birth of a Nation, Film, Epoch Producing Corporation, Tokyo.
King, W., 1988, ‘FILM; Fact vs. Fiction in Mississippi’, The New York Times. Web.
Mccrisken, T. & Pepper, A., 2005, American history and contemporary Hollywood film, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
Parker, A., 1988, Mississippi burning, Film, Orion Pictures Corporation, California.
Pitts, M., 1984, Hollywood and American history, McFarland, Jefferson.
Rollins, P. & O’Connor, J., 1998, Hollywood’s Indian, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
Sampson, H., 1977, Blacks in Black and White: A source Book on Black Films, The Scarecrow Press, Inc.: Metuchen.
Toplin, R., 1996, ‘Hollywood’s History: The Historian’s Response’, Reviews in American History, vol. 24 no. 2, pp.337-343.
Toplin, R., 1997, History by Hollywood: The Use and Abuse of the American Past, University of Illinois Press, Champaign.
Footnotes
1 M. Carnes, T. Mico, J. Miller-Monzon, & D. Rubel 1995, Past imperfect, H. Holt, New York, p.84.
2 R. Toplin 1997, History by Hollywood: The Use and Abuse of the American Past, University of Illinois Press, Champaign , p.267.
3 R. Toplin 1996, ‘Hollywood’s History: The Historian’s Response’, Reviews in American History, vol. 24 no. 2, pp. 337-343.
4 Ibid, p.339.
5 R. Fyne 2006, ‘American History and Contemporary Hollywood Film’, The Journal of Popular Culture, vol.39 no.3, pp. 500 -501.
6 G. Butters 2008, ‘Hollywood Be Thy Name and the New Wave of African American Film Scholarship’, Reviews in American History, vol.36 no.1, pp. 89–94.
7 Toplin 1997, p.119.
8 W. Griffith 1915, The Birth of a Nation, Film, Epoch Producing Corporation, Tokyo.
9 W. King 1988, ‘FILM; Fact vs. Fiction in Mississippi’, The New York Times.
10 V. Canby 1988, ‘Review/Film; Retracing Mississippi’s Agony, 1964’, The New York Times.
11 A. Parker 1988, Mississippi burning, Film, Orion Pictures Corporation, California.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid
15 King, Para. 8.
16 Ibid.
17 N. Davis 2003, ‘Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective’, The Public Historian, vol. 25 no.3, pp. 45-48.
18 Parker, 1988.
19 King, Para. 14.
20 Ibid.
21 Parker, 1988.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Canby, para.6.
29 T Mccrisken & A Pepper 2005, American history and contemporary Hollywood film, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
30 Ibid.
31 M. Pitts 1984, Hollywood and American history, McFarland, Jefferson.
32 P. Rollins & J. O’Connor 1998, Hollywood’s Indian, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington.
33 Griffith, 1915.
34 Ibid.
35 H. Sampson 1977, Blacks in Black and White: A source Book on Black Films, The Scarecrow Press, Inc.: Metuchen.
36 Griffith, 1915.
37 Sampson, p.63.
38 Griffith, 1915.
39 Sampson, p.71.
40 Ibid, p.85.
41 Ibid, p.86.
42 Ibid, p.112.
43A. Dawson 2009, Hollywood for historians, University of Warwick, Coventry.
44 Fyne, p.90.
45Parker, 1988.
46 Ibid.